Jessica A. Koper

The applicant, an elected school trustee, sought judicial review of two Board decisions finding she breached the Trustees' Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information and imposing 90-day meeting suspensions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications to quash the decisions, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, no Charter violations, and that the decisions were reasonable.

However, the court found the 90-day sanctions unreasonable as they appeared to rely on a new statutory regime not yet applicable, and varied the sanctions to the 38 days already served.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent, Colin Jones, moved to consolidate an estate application commenced in Toronto with a related application commenced in Guelph, and to transfer the Toronto application to Guelph.

The applicant, Brian Jones, opposed the transfer, arguing the matter should remain in Toronto to benefit from the Toronto Estates List's mandatory mediation and case management.

The court granted the motion to consolidate and transfer the proceedings to Guelph, finding that Guelph had a much stronger connection to the parties and the estate assets.

However, the court imposed a condition requiring the parties to attend mandatory mediation.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a force majeure clause in commercial leases between school boards and a multi-purpose sporting facility.

Due to province-wide COVID-19 lockdowns, the facility was unable to open, and the school boards sought rent abatement under the force majeure clause.

The application judge found the clause applied and rent was abated.

The appellant (landlord) argued that the clause required the landlord to explicitly "claim" a force majeure event for rent abatement to occur, which they had not done.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation.

The court affirmed that the landlord's objective inability to provide the leased premises due to the lockdown triggered the rent abatement, regardless of an explicit claim by the landlord.

Two school boards applied for a declaration that the force majeure clauses in their commercial leases with the respondent landlord applied to abate rent during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown from March 17, 2020, to August 11, 2020.

The landlord argued the clauses excused it from providing the premises but did not excuse the tenants from paying rent.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and found that the pandemic-induced government lockdown was a triggering event that prevented the landlord from providing the leased space.

Under the specific wording of the leases, this excused the landlord's performance and abated the tenants' rent obligations for the lockdown period.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent school board to consent to the assignment of a 99-year parking lot licence to a prospective purchaser of the applicant's property.

The respondent refused, arguing the agreement was effectively a lease that violated the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

The court found the agreement was a valid licence, not a lease, and fell within the exception in s. 50(9) of the Planning Act for structures.

The application was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to consent to the assignment.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had refused to dismiss a human rights application early.

The underlying human rights application alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate related to a student's expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing tribunal proceeding.

The court distinguished a previous case, noting there was no risk of inconsistent findings, no broad principle at stake, and the judicial review had caused delay.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award regarding a real estate commission dispute on the basis that the arbitration committee provided no reasons for its decision.

The court found that the total absence of reasons violated section 38 of the Arbitration Act and common law requirements.

Because there was no record of the arbitration proceedings and no assurance the committee members could recall their reasoning, the court declined to remit the matter back to the committee and instead set aside the award.

The applicant, a 57-year-old custodian with the respondent school board, alleged age discrimination after being denied promotions to two foreperson positions and refused interviews for three supervisor positions.

The successful candidates for the foreperson positions were 45 and 43 years old.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decisions, namely that the successful candidates had superior work performance and supervisory experience.

The Tribunal also dismissed an allegation of reprisal, finding no evidence that the respondent's actions regarding summer work assignments were intended to retaliate against the applicant for claiming rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to close an elementary school due to declining enrollment.

The applicants argued the decision was procedurally unfair and that the board trustees exhibited a closed mind, raising a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board substantially complied with its accommodation review policy, provided adequate disclosure, and afforded the community a meaningful opportunity to participate.

The court also held that the trustees' conduct, viewed objectively, did not meet the 'closed mind' test for bias in the context of a policy-driven decision by elected officials.